A widowed daughter-in-law has a right to maintenance from her father-in-law under specific conditions if she cannot support herself from her own resources.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 2-12-2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa, in CMJC No.30/12 wherein maintenance has been directed to be paid to the widowed daughter - in - law (respondent herein) as against her father - in - law (appellant herein).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was married to the son of the appellant namely; Ashwani Kumar Lal on 11-7-2008. The husband of the respondent died on 21-6-2012. According to the respondent, after the death of her husband there was a considerable change in the behaviour of in - laws towards her and she was almost deserted in the family. Having reported the facts to her father, she was taken to her parental home. The respondent further pleaded that the bank passbook and ATM card, which belong to her husband were kept by the in - laws. The respondent also pleaded that at village Haretikala, Tahsil Jaijaipur ancestral property of 11.78 acres and at village Jaijaipur 3.97 acres of agricultural land are held by the appellant. In addition, three shops and house situated at different places of Korba wherein right of late husband of the respondent is also vested. According to the respondent, she has no source of income to maintain herself, as such, an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month was claimed towards maintenance.

3. In reply to the averments made by the respondent, the appellant contended that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home and she was never deserted by his family members. He further contends that in order to treat the ailment of his son (husband of the respondent), considerable amount was spent, as such, the appellant does not have any source of income and, therefore, he is unable to pay the maintenance.

4. Learned family Court after evaluating the evidence by the order impugned directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent.

5. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that in order to get the maintenance from the father - in - law, the daughter - in - law is required to plead and prove that she does not have any source of income and she is unable to get the maintenance from the estate of her husband. According to him, these facts have not been proved by the respondent by placing reliable and cogent evidence. He would further submit that the document filed under O.41 ,R.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth 'the CPC') before this Court would show that certain lands have already been recorded in the name of daughter - in - law, therefore, she can earn her livelihood from such properties and consequently the father - in - law cannot be forced to pay the maintenance. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Dayali Sukhlal Sahu v. Anju Bai Santosh Sahu , 2010 (3) CGLJ 459 : (AIR 2010 CHH 80) and Parwati v. Danpatra Singh and Ors. , 2021 (1) CGLJ 328 : AIR 2020 CHH 202.

6. Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the respondent has pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and the property, which was held by the appellant as a Manager, is a coparcenary property, wherein the right of the deceased husband of the respondent was vested. He would further submit that since the amount of maintenance was not paid from the estate of her husband as such the respondent (daughter - in - law) was entitled to get maintenance from the appellant (father - in - law).

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and documents available on record.

8. In order to ens